ReviewInternational journal of clinical practice2021
A pre-systematic review on the use of masks as a protection material for SARS-COV-2 during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Review in International journal of clinical practice, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A pre-systematic review on the use of masks as a protection material for SARS-COV-2 during the COVID-19 pandemic.International journal of clinical practice · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was first reported in Wuhan, China on 31 December 2019.
aimsto review, analyse and discuss all works about the wearing and development of facemasks as potential protection against SARS-COV-2 during the COVID-19 pandemic.
methodsPubMed, SciELO, Google Scholar and DOAJ were browsed. KEYWORDS: "mask and (SARS or Cov)" (1 August 2019 to 12 April 2020). INCLUSION CRITERIA: original research. PRISMA criteria were followed.
resultsTwenty-one works were selected. Identified topics: effectiveness of protective equipment/devices (PE) (n = 3), universal wearing of facemasks plus other protective measures in the community (n = 3), impact of infection control measures on hospitals and epidemiological tracing (n = 3), development of new PE (n = 2), sanitisation of facemasks (n = 4), clinical guidance (n = 4) and questionnaires (n = 2). DISCUSSION: It seems that the effectiveness of PE, namely facemasks, is not fully known. Universal wearing of facemasks may be simultaneously recommended with other protective measures. Nosocomial and community infections seem to be preventable. New PE, methods of facemask sanitisation and clinical guidance are emerging, but caution is recommended regarding their adoption, revision and monitoring by international boards and institutions. Questionnaires are useful tools for collecting citizens' opinions on implementing public health measures, and thus contribute to mitigating the COVID-19 pandemic.
conclusionsUniversal wearing of facemasks in the community is likely to be recommended during the COVID-19pandemic. Since SARS-COV-2 is highly contagious, a set of measures should be considered. Facemask sanitisation is possible, but standardised procedures are lacking. New PE is emerging and requires detailed regulatory approval. It is advisable to monitor public opinion.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.